The Face of Truth | Ibrahim Shaglawi Al-Burhan’s Visit to Cairo and the Limits of the Regional Role
President Abdel Fattah al-Burhan’s visit to Cairo came just two days after his visit to Riyadh, at an extremely sensitive moment that reflects Khartoum’s effort to manage multiple, parallel tracks in confronting an existential war targeting the very structure of the state. This timing serves as an indicator of Sudan’s attempt to reposition itself within a highly fluid regional and international equation. In this article, we attempt to deconstruct this complex scene.
In Cairo, the Egyptian presidency issued an early and striking statement, one whose implications went beyond mere political solidarity. The statement clearly outlined strategic red lines, which can be read as a strict Egyptian framework for dealing with the Sudanese crisis. It affirmed Sudan’s unity and territorial integrity, rejected any attempts at fragmentation or the creation of parallel entities, and raised the possibility of activating the joint defense agreement—a position that reveals Egyptian concerns over potential partition scenarios, alongside references to the presence of the Rapid Support Forces in camps in Ethiopia adjacent to the Sudanese border, with coordination and sponsorship from the UAE.
The statement also emphasized the protection of Sudanese state institutions as the guarantor of stability, an assertion carrying a dual dimension: supporting the Sudanese state on one hand, and warning that any harm to its institutions would place the crisis within the realm of a direct threat to Egyptian national security on the other.
However, the timing of the reference to the joint defense agreement invites a critical reading, as it came late, after the Rapid Support Forces militia had already consolidated control over vast areas of Darfur and parts of Kordofan. This makes the talk of joint defense closer to a belated strategic declaration than to the immediate activation of a defensive mechanism. Nevertheless, its political value lies in redefining the crisis as a matter of regional security rather than an isolated internal Sudanese affair.
Alongside the rhetoric of deterrence, the Egyptian statement was keen to keep the international track open by emphasizing work within the international Quartet to reach a humanitarian truce and secure safe corridors for civilians. Here, the apparent contradiction in the Egyptian position emerges: Sudan rejects the Quartet due to reservations over the inclusion of the United Arab Emirates, following the proven involvement of the latter in supporting the Rapid Support Forces militia, which strips it of the status of a neutral mediator.
The inclusion of the Quartet in the Egyptian statement can be understood as a balanced maneuver by Cairo, aimed at managing regional and international partner pressures without abandoning support for the Sudanese state. The Quartet is presented here as a tool for managing the crisis rather than resolving it, in contrast to the Jeddah track, which Khartoum views as the only reliable reference it can engage with, given that it produced the May 11, 2023 agreement that nearly stopped the war had its implementation been enforced through clear pressure on the militia.
In this context, al-Burhan’s visit was preceded by remarks from the Egyptian Foreign Ministry about “safe havens in Darfur,” a proposal that represents the most problematic link in the chain. Put forward without clear coordination with the Sudanese government, it opens a dangerous sovereignty vacuum, as it allows for the presence of international forces and contradicts the discourse of protecting the state. Historically, the experience of safe havens has been catastrophic by all measures, from Bosnia to Rwanda, where such areas turned into human traps devoid of sovereignty and protection. In the Sudanese context, this proposal grants the Rapid Support Forces militia a political gain by entrenching the reality of control on the ground rather than dismantling it.
The field reality undermines this option, as citizens are spontaneously displaced toward areas under army control as the only places perceived as safe for protection. This confirms that civilians are not seeking a safe haven outside the state, but rather a state capable of protecting them. Consequently, any approach that does not fall under the full sovereignty of the state may turn into a mechanism for prolonging the conflict, or even evolve into an entity beyond control.
Against this complex reality, a convergence between Cairo and Riyadh becomes evident in terms of objectives, though not in methods. Saudi Arabia holds to the Jeddah track as a de-escalation tool capable of development, enjoying Khartoum’s trust, while Washington moves to regulate the international tempo and prevent a comprehensive collapse without resorting to a costly decisive intervention. Cairo, for its part, seeks to prevent the dismantling of the Sudanese state while supporting the humanitarian track and avoiding rapid military resolution, preferring to manage transformations within a broader international framework.
The Cairo visit, therefore, was not merely a complementary stop in a regional tour, but a pivotal political moment that redrew the boundaries of intervention and mediation: inviolable red lines, joint defense invoked as a deterrent reference, and an international track managed with caution. In the background, Sudan moves between Riyadh, Cairo, and Washington in a delicate attempt to buy time and prevent the internationalization of the crisis outside its national conditions.
Domestically, al-Burhan’s announcement regarding not depriving Sudanese citizens of their rights related to identification documents carries an important political significance, perhaps reflecting a declaration of intent to pave the way for a potential approach to Sudanese dialogue. It separates civilian opposition from the armed militia targeting the state and affirms that the ongoing war is not a political dispute, but a battle over the essence of the state.
In this context, regional movements intersect with leaks about a potential negotiation track in Washington this week, led by Prime Minister Dr. Kamel Idris. This reflects Sudanese management of parallel tracks: Riyadh to secure political cover, Cairo to fix red lines, and Washington to recalibrate international roles—without relinquishing sovereignty and while rejecting the legitimization of the militia.
The conclusion of the scene related to al-Burhan’s visit to Cairo and the limits of the regional role, according to #The_Face_of_Truth, can be read as follows: Cairo seeks to achieve a difficult equation—protecting its national security by stabilizing the Sudanese state, while engaging in international tracks without granting them authority to override the Sudanese internal sphere. As for safe havens and quartets, they should be nothing more than temporary headlines that do not shape the future of the Sudanese state. Riyadh and Washington represent the available and trusted option. As for Khartoum, it is managing its battle on the edge of the abyss, rejecting a shameful peace and holding firmly to the principle that any settlement not grounded in the unity of the state, the exclusivity of arms, and the legitimacy of national institutions is not a solution, but merely a postponement of another explosion.
Wishing you continued well-being.
Saturday, December 20, 2025
Shglawi55@gmail.com